|
The Annan Plan and the Greek Cypriot “NO”:
False Reasons and Claims
Greek Cypriot Claim no.1: “The UN Plan was not well balanced.”
Truth:
“The Security Council,
4. Gives its full support to the Secretary-General’s carefully balanced
plan….” (UN Security Council resolution no. 1475(2003))
“The plan is complex and delicately balanced. Inevitably, as in any
negotiation, it is a compromise.” (Report of the UN Secretary-General to
the UN Security Council, 16 April 2004)
“The Annan Plan offers all Cypriots --for the first time -- a
concrete, balanced and comprehensive proposal for the settlement of the
Cyprus issue.” (Open letter of Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of
the Council of Europe, 21 April 2004)
“This plan is fair. It is designed to work.” (UNSG Annan’s speech
delivered in Burgenstock on 31 March 2004)
“The plan is inevitably a compromise. It does not meet all the demands
of each side. But the Secretary-General believes it is a fair and
balanced plan.” (UNSG’s Special Advisor on Cyprus, Mr. de Soto’s
briefing to the UN Security Council on 2 April 2004)
“Together with a broad cross-section of the international community,
the Secretary-General remains convinced that the settlement plan put to
the two sides in today’s referenda represents a fair, viable and
carefully balanced compromise.” (UN Secretary-General’s statement as
read by his Special Advisor on Cyprus Mr. Alvaro de Soto, 24 April 2004)
“The Secretary General remains convinced that the plan submitted
represents a fair, viable and carefully balanced compromise - one that
meets the minimum requirements of all concerned.” (UN Under-Secretary
General Mr. Prendergast’s briefing to the UN Security Council on 28
April 2004)
Greek Cypriot Claim no.2: “The Turkish demands have been satisfied,
almost in toto, in the revised Annan Plan, while very important concerns
of the Greek Cypriot side have been disregarded.” “This process has
failed in addressing the legitimate concerns, needs and interests of
both sides”
Truth:
“…Contrary to claims made during the campaign, changes were made to
meet, to the extent possible, core concerns of both sides, and these
changes were within the parameters of the plan.” (UN Under-Secretary
General Prendergast’s briefing to the UN Security Council on 28 April
2004)
“Former Chief Prosector (and member of the Greek Cypriot negotiation
delegation) Mr. Markides stated that in the fifth (and final) version of
the Annan Plan 8 amendments in favor of, and 3 against the Greek Cypriot
side were made. (The favorable changes were in the areas of human
rights; Greek Cypriot residency rights in the Turkish Cypriot State;
freedom of movement; ratification of the settlement agreement by the
Turkish Parliament prior to its entry into force; better transitional
periods; strengthened role of the UN in the territories subject to
adjustment; better provisions for the Central Bank and economic
viability; and increase of property claims)” (Greek Cypriot daily
Fileleftheros, 4 April 2004)
“In this revised text, the Secretary-General sought to address the key
concerns that had been expressed by the two sides in the negotiations,
while maintaining the overall balance of the plan.” (UNSG’s Special
Advisor on Cyprus, Mr. de Soto’s briefing to the UN Security Council on
2 April 2004)
“This plan is inevitably a compromise. It does not satisfy everyone’s
demands. But I believe it meets the core interests, and addresses the
key concerns, of people on both sides.” (UNSG Annan’s speech delivered
in Burgenstock on 31 March 2004)
“Over the last few years, Kofi Annan and his team have built on
earlier efforts and worked tirelessly to bring about a comprehensive
settlement package that meets the key interests of the two sides…” (UK
Deputy Foreign Minister Baroness Symons’s statement at the House of
Lords on 28 April 2004)
“The settlement that the Secretary-General finalized on March 31st
outlined an equitable compromise in which no party receives everything
it seeks, but which satisfies the fundamental requirements of all
parties” (Statement of White House Spokesman Mr. Mcclellan, 21 April
2004)
“The Secretary General applauds the Turkish Cypriots, who approved the
plan notwithstanding the significant sacrifices that it entailed for
many of them.” (UN Under-Secretary General Prendergast’s briefing to the
UN Security Council on 28 April 2004)
“The only thing we did (during the negotiations) was to provide a
200-page document; and when we were asked to submit our priorities (for
amendments), we did so at the last minute. In spite of this, many of our
demands have been satisfied…” (Interview given by Mr.Klerides, former
Greek Cypriot leader, to Greek daily Fileleftheros, 18 April 2004)
Greek Cypriot Claim no.3: “Greek Cypriots did not consent to a Plan
which contains provisions inserted, without the agreement of both
sides…” “There are many aspects of the Annan Plan, for which I am not
satisfied by the compromises that have been imposed, without a prior
negotiation and by fully overlooking our own well documented demands”
Truth:
“In finalizing this document, I have been in close consultation with
the two parties in Cyprus, and with Greece and Turkey who have lent
their collaboration to the concentrated effort that has just been
complete” (UNSG Annan’s letter of 31 March 2004, addressed to the
parties)
“Even though finalized by me at the invitation of the parties, the
Plan’s core concepts and key trade-offs, as well as the bulk of the many
texts included, are largely the work of Cypriots.” (Report of the UN
Secretary-General to the UN Security Council, 16 April 2004)
“…the process, from this point onwards, moved to the third phase,…in
which the text would be finalized by the Secretary-General. The
Secretary-General wished to do so in the closest collaboration with al
concerned --hence the consultations with the parties over the next 48
hours in the run-up to the presentation of a final text on 31 March”. (UNSG’s
Special Advisor on Cyprus, Mr. de Soto’s briefing to the UN Security
Council on 2 April 2004)
“The European Parliament,
Points out that the final settlement plan has been negotiated between
the two sides on the island of Cyprus with the involvement of Greece and
Turkey and has been finalized under the authority of the UN Security
Council by the UNSG Kofi Annan;” (European Parliament resolution on
Cyprus 21 April 2004)
“Parts of the plan were put together by the United Nations. But all of
its key concepts emerged out of four years of negotiation among your
leaders. And most of its 9,000 pages were drafted by hundreds of Greek
Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Their extraordinary efforts produced one
of the most comprehensive peace plans in the history of the United
Nations.” (Secretary-General’s video message, 21 April 2004)
“The Plan, which will be put to…referendum this coming Saturday, has
been prepared over years throughout the patient efforts of the UN and
both Cypriot communities.” (Open letter from Walter Schwimmer, Secretary
General of the Council of Europe 21 April 2004)
“…the parties agreed, on 13 February, to resume negotiations on the
basis of the plan…To that end they committed themselves (to a 3-phase
approach)…As a final resort, in the event of a continuing and persistent
deadlock, the parties invited me to use my discretion to finalize the
text to be submitted to separate and simultaneous referenda…” (Report of
the UN Secretary-General on Cyprus, 16 April 2004, S/2004/302)
“I am asking each guarantor power (Greece, Turkey and the United
Kingdom) to confirm to me and each other in writing, no later than 7
April 2004, that they agree to the Foundation Agreement being submitted
to separate simultaneous referenda.../ During April, the
Secretary-General received from the guarantors the commitments required
of them to authorize the submission of the plan to referenda…” (UNSG
Annan’s letter dated 31 March 2004, to all the relevant parties /
Briefing by Deputy Under-Secretary-General Mr. Prendergast to the
Security Council on 28 April 2004)
Greek Cypriot Claim no.4: “In the run up to the referendum, there was a
lively public debate conducted in calm and civilized manner with full
respect to freedom of opinion and of expression and the right to freedom
of information in the media and elsewhere.”
Truth:
“…We do think that there was a lot of manipulation by the Greek
Cypriot leaders in the run-up to the election; that the outcome was
regrettable but not surprising, given those actions. I think the
Europeans as well have made clear -- statements by External Relations
Commissioner Chris Patten, European Parliamentary President Pat Cox,
Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen -- that they have strong concerns in
that regard as well.
Question: What was the manipulation that you alluded to?
Mr. Boucher: There were restrictions on the press, decision by the
Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation's board of directors that limited full
coverage of foreigners' statements on the U.N. settlement and on
Saturday's referendum. A statistical study of pre-referendum media
environment indicates anti-settlement advocates, including the president
himself, received almost twice as much airtime as pro- settlement
advocates. I think we noted that even the European commissioner, the
enlargement commissioner was not allowed on the air; struck us as
particularly odd.
There were also a lot of reports that the Ministry of Education
dismissed children from school early on the 21st and 27th -- and 22nd so
that they could go to anti-settlement events. Teachers were instructed
to encourage their students to vote no. And students were provided with
no banners and t-shirts by their teachers. Some were even bussed to
specific locations. So, given those kind of purposeful policies, we're
not surprised that numerous reports of physical intimidation and threats
were made by Greek Cypriots campaigning for a no vote, especially a
death threat directed at an 18-year-old schoolboy who favoured the
settlement. We especially regret that not one Greek Cypriot official
spoke out at the time against numerous shameful incidents that took
place before the referenda.” (Spokesman of the US State Department
Richard Boucher’s encounter with the press on 26 April 2004)
“Now is not the time to go into details about what information was or
was not made available to the people during the referendum campaigns, or
to elaborate on unfounded concerns generated about job security for
public servants in the proposed new structures, or to comment on the
issue of access to the media by international figures from the United
Nations and the European Union who were ready to explain the plan and
the commitments of the international community. However, concerns on
these points were directly raised by Mr. De Soto with Mr. Papadopoulos.
Members of the Council will be aware that they have also been raised in
other fora. …In light of the above, the result of the referendum by the
Greek Cypriot electorate, one which had been strongly encouraged by Mr.
Papadopoulos, raises serious questions.” (UN Under-Secretary General
Prendergast’s briefing to the UN Security Council on 28 April 2004)
“…For months on end, I have done everything I could in good faith to
make it possible for Greek Cypriots to accept this plan. This is a
country that will be joining the EU soon. The least we could expect is a
fair and balanced information campaign. Never before in the history of
the Commission has a member of the European Commission been accused of
interference in the internal affairs of a Member State. I call on
Papadopoulos to guarantee the freedom of the media. I regret that the
many Greek Cypriot statements have lacked the words, peace,
understanding and co-existence. All these terms have been absent.” (EU
Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen’s statement to the European
Parliament, 21 April 2004)
Speaking exclusively to European Voice, George Vassillou, the
ex-President (of Cyprus), who sealed Cyprus’ entry into the EU as the
chief negotiator in 2001, accused the country’s rulers of “blatant
violation of democratic and human rights.” (“Greek Cypriot leaders
accused of muzzling ‘Yes’ campaigners”, by David Cronin, European Voice)
Greek Cypriot Claim no.5: “The Annan Plan does not abolish the de facto
division but on the contrary, legalizes and deepens it.” “…the economic
viability of the Plan is doubtful and its functional weaknesses endanger
the smooth and effective participation of Cyprus in the European
Union…there are more adverse provisions in the final Plan regarding
qualitative and quantitative regime on property rights…” “Freedom of
movement and residence are restricted…and the fundamental human rights
of Greek Cypriots to return to their stolen homes will be abrogated
forever.”
Truth:
“…The plan envisages one independent and sovereign state, the United
Cyprus Republic. That State is based on the parameters agreed between
the parties since the 1970s --a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal structure,
based on the political equality of the two communities. The plan
prohibits partition or secession, domination by one side, or union with
any other country. The plan ends the status quo. It ends the division of
the country. It would allow a reunited Cyprus to speak with one voice
internationally, particularly in the European Union. The plan fully
respects individual human rights including the rights of those of you
who were forced to leave your homes.” (Secretary-General’s video
message, 21 April 2004)
“The revised plan has a property scheme that is simpler, fairer and
more certain. It has a more workable system of government. It has better
safeguards for the constituent states. It has transitional arrangements
that I am confident can and will work. And it has been improved from the
financial and economic point of view.” (UNSG Annan’s speech delivered in
Burgenstock on 31 March 2004)
“If the settlement is approved in the referenda next month, Cyprus
would reunify, in time to accede to the European Union. After only a
short interval, freedom of movement would prevail, without border-like
checkpoints. A new state of affairs would emerge, far better designed
than the one of 1960 to manage relations between the two communities. A
substantial number of Greek Cypriots would be able to return to the
homes they left behind thirty years ago, and to do so under Greek
Cypriot administration. Others would receive full and effective
compensation. Cypriots from both sides could return to their homes in
the area administered by the other Constituent State.This plan is fair.
It is designed to work. And I believe it provides Cypriots with a secure
framework for a common future.” (UNSG Annan’s speech delivered in
Burgenstock on 31 March 2004)
“We have worked closely with the European Union, the World Bank and
the IMF to make a number of changes, to ensure that the plan is
economically and financially sound.” (Secretary-General’s video message,
21 April 2004)
“The UN Secretary General's comprehensive settlement proposals would
have enabled a large number of Greek and Turkish Cypriots the right to
return to their former homes. Furthermore, every dispossessed owner was
entitled to a guaranteed proportion of all their former property under a
regime designed to deliver material benefits to all. (Excerpt from the
answers of British Deputy Foreign Minister MacShane, House of Commons,
17 May 2004)
Greek Cypriot Claim no.6: “It seems that to us that we were required (in
the referendum) to take part in violating international law and UN
resolutions” “…President Papadopoulos has made abundantly clear that the
Greek Cypriot side has been willing to negotiate on the basis of the
Annan Plan in order to find a functional and viable solution of the
Cyprus problem within the parameters of the relevant Security Council
resolutions and in full respect of the UN purposes and principles…”
Truth:
“The ‘Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem’, which was drawn
up taking full consideration of relevant United Nations resolutions and
treaties…provides for a new state of affairs that is in full accordance
with the (Security) Council’s vision of a settlement.” (Report of the UN
Secretary-General to the UN Security Council, 16 April 2004)
“Together with a broad cross-section of the international community,
the Secretary-General remains convinced that the settlement
plan…conforms with the long-agreed parameters for a solution, and with
the Security Council’s vision for a settlement…” (UN Secretary-General’s
statement as read by his Special Advisor on Cyprus Mr. Alvaro de Soto,
24 April 2004)
“The Plan conforms with the long-agreed parameters for a solution and
with the Security Council’s vision for a settlement.” (UN
Under-Secretary General Prendergast’s briefing to the UN Security
Council on 28 April 2004)
“The Secretary General’s plan is a fair, viable, and carefully
balanced compromise that conforms with the long-agreed to parameters of
a settlement and with the Security Council’s vision for a settlement.”
(Statement made on behalf of the United States by the Alternate US
Representative to UN Ambassador Stuart Holliday, on the situation on
Cyprus, at the Security Council stakeout, 29 April 2004)
… and the real reason why the Greek Cypriots were guided to a “NO” vote:
As explained by Mr. Papadopoulos, Greek Cypriot leader, in his
televised address to Greek Cypriot voters before the referenda, on 7
April 2004:
“If the sovereign people reject the Plan by their vote, the Republic of
Cyprus will become a full and equal member of the European Union. We
would have achieved the strategic goal we have jointly set, i.e. to
upgrade and shield politically the Republic of Cyprus.
The view that this would be the final initiative for the solution of the
Cyprus problem constitutes dogmatism and ignorance of the rules of
international policy.
Turkey’s accession course will also continue and therefore Ankara would
continue to be under continuous monitoring concerning the adoption of
the European acquis. International interest for normalisation and peace
in our region will continue to exist.
Shall we do away with our internationally recognised state exactly at
the very moment it strengthens its political weight with its accession
to the European Union?
I call upon you to reject the Annan Plan. I call upon you to say a
resounding ‘NO’ on 24 April.”
|